Madeleine McCann: Portugal Police Search And Eilis O’Hanlon Empathises
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
SUNDAY PEOPLE: “Police hunt for Maddie ‘is still on’”
Portugal’s top cop has vowed to search “to the ends of the Earth” for Maddie McCann even though prosecutors have shelved the case. Almeida Rodrigues, head of the Judicial Police, said his detectives will chase up all leads until the 15-month mystery is solved.
No end in sight.
He said: “A case only stops being investigated if there is a successful criminal trial.”
IRISH INDEPENDENT: “Only McCanns know full pain of never-ending story - If you find the ambiguity hard to live with, imagine the trauma the McCanns have to endure, writes Eilis O’Hanlon”
Let’s empathise. Says O’Hanlon:
It’s difficult to know where the story can go from here.
But you’ve got a column to fill. Dig deep.
But it still feels as if an ending of sorts has been reached. The disappearance of Madeleine has become a part of history. That’s probably a shocking indictment of the shortness of our collective memory — but, reprehensible or not, it’s true.
It’s living history. Read about it today’s Irish Indy.
The internet obsessives will keep the flame burning a little longer, having determined long ago not to let a little thing like the facts stop them witch-hunting Kate and Gerry; but even they will give up eventually.
Read O’Hanlon’s column online.
And that’s why there’s still such an unwillingness among many to accept that the McCanns’ names really have been conclusively cleared. Take the Portuguese statement at face value, rather than deciphering it for clues that Madeleine’s parents really were guilty of her murder and are only being exonerated because they have powerful friends who put pressure on the authorities in Praia da Luz, and what it means is that there still isn’t closure and there’s precious little prospect of there ever being so. It means living with ambiguity.
Well, no. The McCanns are no longer suspects because there is no evidence to say otherwise. But hasn’t it all ended, O’Hanlon?
Posted: 27th, July 2008 | In: Broadsheets, Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (368) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Anorak on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- Desperate Dan on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- June on Wikileaks Publishes 500,000 9/11 FBI And NYPD Pager Messages, Conspiracy Theorists Read On
- June on Chilcot Inquiry Into Iraq War: Day 2 In Pictures
- percy stilton on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
July 27th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Question for you Amused bystander regarding “the innuendo that anybody who defends ‘presumption of innocence’ of the MC’s direct involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine is condoning the MCs leaving their children alone in the bedroom.”
If she wandered off, IMO they ARE directly involved in her disappearance by leaving the doors unlocked.
As there is no evidence of abduction, they are not directly involved in that.
I’ll grant you that.
July 27th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Jings another opinion, me I think Amaral rightly or wrongly is going to have his arse kicked.
http://tinyurl.com/6xqmh3
July 27th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
It also nails the tosh about all those doctors being able to resuscitate a child, and notes how terrifyingly fast an infection can kill a child…
July 27th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Elena…. I see you’re getting the ankle-biting now.
next you’ll be accused of being me / Maria / Cheryl / Garth / Gandolf / Ferdinand…….
July 27th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Chenier 7.27 pm
Thank you for that. Looks interesting. I’ve put the paper in my Favorites to read when I get the time.
July 27th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Elena, should you have trouble in tracking down CEMACH’s ‘Why Children Die’ report, published in May, which notes:
‘A critical lapse in parental supervision was a recurrent feature in accidental and traumatic child death in the younger age groups.’
here is
http://tinyurl.com/5tdlzs
July 27th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
M and A said,
“Those who defend people who leave children alone could be defined as McCannlanders.”
and
“definitions then: Anoraklanders don’t leave children alone
McCannlanders do”
———————————————————————————–
So everybody who defends the McCanns leaves their children alone? I don’t think so.
I don’t. My friends don’t. My neighbours don’t. My colleagues don’t. Where did you get this information or is it your opinion? It is totally and completely unfair.
M and A ,
try reading the word ‘could’
Why involve your friends neighbours etc?
July 27th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Maria 6.57 pm
JJ’s comment was a complete red herring, Maria. You had already got under this evening’s Moderator’s (?????) skin, by
1. giving very reasonable answers to her questions as to why you stood on the fence regarding the MC’s direct involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine until the PJ gave their conclusions
2. explaining why you would still wish to grant “presumption of innocence” if and when evidence might indicate incrimination (as you said, any of us would hope for the same if we were in the same position—in a civilised nation) and that you were somewhat shocked by her question regarding this (5.49 pm).
So this evening’s Moderator reacted by changing the subject:
“I’m reasonable and fair, but somewhat more responsible than others, and people who avoid their self imposed duties do earn my contempt. I do not see leaving children totally alone as a mistake, they had two options, stay in or get a babysitter.”
Which has absolutely zilch connection with what you were talking about!!! This also carried the innuendo that anybody who defends “presumption of innocence” of the MC’s direct involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine is condoning the MCs leaving their children alone in the bedroom. Typical Anorak diversionary mud-slinging tactic. And from a Moderator??
June Johnson’s post (6.32 pm) was unfortunately a sad extension of this logic.
This is the kind of thing that seems to me to destroy real debate. Unfortunately…….
UPDATE:
Maria 7.02 pm re “Ian-of-old”. I was thinking exactly the same thing!!!
July 27th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Elena Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
M and A said,
“I have never accused either of MM parents of killing her, but I do fear she came to real grief in their absence, NOT necessarily the favourite option of abduction, more likely choking or vomiting or a fall. ALL options were avoidable had they used a babysitter.”
————————————————————————————–
Not always. Children have and do have serious accidents when in the charge of babysitters. It is one reason why you leave a list of emergency numbers including the local doctor and ambulance on your way out. For goodness sake they have serious accidents when in the care of their parents! You could be standing right next to them!
—————————
Elena, may I suggest that you read the excellent paper entitled ‘Why Children Die’.
It’s around £20 in hard copy but you can download the entire PDF for free.
And then perhaps you will stop trying to defend the indefensible…
July 27th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Maria, you say:
(And please don’t talk about digging and knocking on doors themselves. Yawn!)
Why is this boring? Who do you sound like?
July 27th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
M and A said,
“I have never accused either of MM parents of killing her, but I do fear she came to real grief in their absence, NOT necessarily the favourite option of abduction, more likely choking or vomiting or a fall. ALL options were avoidable had they used a babysitter.”
————————————————————————————–
Not always. Children have and do have serious accidents when in the charge of babysitters. It is one reason why you leave a list of emergency numbers including the local doctor and ambulance on your way out. For goodness sake they have serious accidents when in the care of their parents! You could be standing right next to them!
M and A
But can you not see there is someone there , who can either phone for help, stop the choking or get them to a doctor
July 27th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Chenier-for once i agree with you-My brother cited examples to me where in everyday life on family walks he has unwittingly either put the children at risk or calculated the risk-I don’t think it is the same thing. The McCanns have not only put their children at a multitude of risks-they are trying to avoid any reproach. If Maddie hadn’t gone missing, they may well have been doing the same thing now in a different location. To say the police only knocked 500 odd doors-How many did they knock-Why didn’t the whole troop just pay for a darned babysitter. I have no idea what happened to Maddie-but they whatever have caused it and should show 3 billion ounces of humility. IMO.
July 27th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Elena Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
m and a said
you need to ask?
————————————————————————————–
Yes I do. In fairness the claim,”definitions then: Anoraklanders don’t leave children alone
McCannlanders do” is a clear statement that these people leave(present tense) their children alone. Who are they?
—————————-
Well, according to the media, many of the media…
Or hadn’t you noticed the torrent of articles on this very topic…
July 27th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Sorry meant admins& mods are doing a great job as well
July 27th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
m and a said
you need to ask?
————————————————————————————–
Yes I do. In fairness the claim,”definitions then: Anoraklanders don’t leave children alone
McCannlanders do” is a clear statement that these people leave(present tense) their children alone. Who are they?
M and A
Those who defend people who leave children alone could be defined as McCannlanders.
July 27th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
I think that my definition of a McCannlander would be someone who thinks that a parent breaking the law, and causing the death of their child as a result, has made a ‘little error’…
July 27th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
M and A
I am very aware that following the herd can be a futile and foolish exercise.
But seriously KM is a GP, her training for this involves over burdened mothers, and the resulting anguish for mother and child when things go over the top.
BUT I work with animals and people as a result of this….not so far removed as you may think, we do contact the SS and they contact us about children/pets who suffer from uninspired parenting.
With the best will in the world, children are not the perfect vision that people dream of, they have minds spirit and personality of their own.But their parents should be parents first and foremost.
5A at Pd L could have had a fire, what then? babysitters are minimal cost, and should or could have entered both parents thoughts.
—————————————————————————————
I would say they would be the last to dispute that with you now.
I have never done it. I wouldn’t even leave mine with a babysitter I was not sure of abroad or at home, which to tell the truth has left me open to criticism in the past.
Nevertheless that system was used by countless people with employees of hotels and resorts doing the patrolling. Now I ask you, if you were to use that system who would you prefer to check on your sleeping children, A( friend,spouse yourself )or B(someone you had never met or only just met) ?Mind I am not saying it was right, as I said it wouldn’t be my style, but then I am sure I have done and will do things which if people took notice of could leave me open to criticism, so could you , unless of course you have the infallibility gene.
M and A
I simply would NOT choose that holiday option, there are many who do not.
No I do not have the infallibility gene,but I do have a responsible one.
July 27th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
JJ
Actually, your view seems rather like that of Ian-of-old!
If you accept the (police) view that the Mcs are innocent of any crime, then you are a child-negector, or, at the very least, a supporter of child-neglect.
I really don’t think that’s quite fair.
Mods and Admin
No, Maria i am not of Ian’s obsession.
But these people chose to have children, they then chose to leave them alone. Mrs McC is a GP she has had training to spot an irresponsible parent, and leaving children alone is irresponsible, more so in her case, she should know better.
Insult me if you must, but I did NOT leave 3 children to their fate
July 27th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
# JuneJohnson Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
definitions then: Anoraklanders don’t leave children alone
McCannlanders do
——————————————————————-
No!
How on earth can you conclude that? How could you possibly know how either Anoraklanders or McCannlanders treat their kids?
Certainly Kate and Gerry McCann and their friends left their children alone. (Although it has to be said that thousands use similar arrangements on holiday. Many holiday sites, including MW, I believe, have stopped their baby-listening services in a panic after the M case. Many honest parents have admitted that they have done the same sort of thing.)
McCannlanders, as you call them, simply thought that there seemed to be no evidence that the Mcs killed their daughter and/or concealed her body, set up a world-wide financial scam, wasted huge amounts of police resources and are still pretending to search for their daughter. (And please don’t talk about digging and knocking on doors themselves. Yawn!)
McCannlanders’ view does rather seem to coincide with that of the competent authorities.
McCannlanders are perfectly capable of crticising the Mcs for leaving the children. Indeed, we have seen Kate’s mother do just that on TV. I presume she lives in McCannland??!!
M and A
I have never accused either of MM parents of killing her, but I do fear she came to real grief in their absence, NOT necessarily the favourite option of abduction, more likely choking or vomiting or a fall. ALL options were avoidable had they used a babysitter.
But the hero worship that followed? seriously, get real.
July 27th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Duncan-how much are you paying Jaz?
July 27th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Your dogs are lovely Duncan thanks for the picture I dont know how to send pics although there are many of them of our Bushy ( the original name he had when he was mistreated ) didnt want to confuse him Amazing he has survived so long! 17 1/2 yrs
You are doing a stalwart job for Madeleine & the mods & admins on Anorak
M and A
Jaz email you pics to duncan@anorak.co.uk.
Looking fwd to seeing Bushy, I’ve had 3 rescue dogs over the years, one lived to 14+, another to 16+ and the current bossy boots Harry is now 14+,his pix is in the forums under June’s Boys, he’s the terrier. The goldies I have had from puppies, and know their families well.
I’m lucky enough to work with animals and meet very caring loving owners, but in the past have been involved with rescuing puppy farm dogs, adults and pups alike.
July 27th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
JuneJohnson said
July 27th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
definitions then: Anoraklanders don’t leave children alone
McCannlanders do
——————————————————————————
June,who are McCannlanders?
m and a
you need to ask?
July 27th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Cheryl,
Just read your post. What can I say? You are a truly remarkable woman and I feel so shallow rabbiting on here about puppies and dogs. I find it remarkable that that step mother could wake and look at herself every morning!
After m. went missing I did contact web sites in an effort to help her and others, but there are so many children! I still have pictures sent to my facebook but what can you do apart from spreading the word ?
Keep up the good work. You have made a great difference in one young life. If each of us could say the same it would be a far better world.
July 27th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
JuneJohnson Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
definitions then: Anoraklanders don’t leave children alone
McCannlanders do
——————–
Come on, JJ; stop pulling your punches and tell us what you really think!
Who me, a little blushing violet like me, oooh I couldn’t
July 27th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
definitions then: Anoraklanders don’t leave children alone
McCannlanders do
July 27th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
DuncanR said:
July 27th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Hi jaz
Got two rescue dogs.
The eldest, Ceilidh, is a Staffie cross.
The youngest, Wee Rab, is a Jack Russell cross
————————————————————————————
They are so adorable! Good luck with them. My little guy is licking my leg as I type. Iwould stop him but then he would be barking to be picked up. It is easier to type with him licking! My children have thwarted any attempt at discipline by laughing and now he is totally spoilt!
July 27th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Duncan R
Irresistible pooches!
Lucky you…..and them!
July 27th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Glad to hear it Duncan, I could never give mine away away, even to good homes.
July 27th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Amused Bystander Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Maria, 5.49 pm.
Maria, didn’t you realise? This isn’t reality here. This is Anorak-land…
———————————————————-
Yup!! You’ve said it!
But one keeps wondering if a note of reality might one day creep in……….!
July 27th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
The Administrator said
I’m afraid you are wrong and I am. Ming the Merciless was bottom of the class two full classification grades behind our bunch of puppy interrogator-torturers . -agw
Ming the Merciless? Never? Well at least you’re not a ” puppy interrogator-torturer”.
I would certainly have words with you if you were! As it is point me in their general direction.. I will round up a posse of my dog loving friends and we’ll tell them what’s what.